4.7 Article

The clinical implication and prognostic predictors of tigecycline treatment for pneumonia involving multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 351-361

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2011.08.001

关键词

Tigecycline; Acinetobacter baumannii; Pneumonia; Multidrug-resistant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate the clinical implication and prognostic predictors of tigecycline treatment for pneumonia involving multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (MDRAB). Methods: A retrospective observational study over a 32-month period for adult patients receiving tigecycline treatment at least 7 days for pneumonia involving MDRAB. Results: We reviewed 112 patients with 116 episodes of tigecycline-treated pneumonia involving MDRAB. The mean age was 70.8 years. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 21.7. Seventy episodes (60.3%) had clinical resolution. The episodes with monomicrobial MDRAB pneumonia had a significantly lower clinical resolution rate than polymicrobial pneumonia (14/31, 45.2% vs. 56/85, 65.9%; p = 0.044). The independent predictors for failure of clinical resolution were female gender, malignancy, bilateral pneumonia, monomicrobial pneumonia, and higher APHCHE II scores. Forty-two episodes (36.2%) had the 30-day mortality, and the only independent predictor was deterioration of pneumonia on chest radiographs. Conclusions: A high disease severity, bilateral pneumonia, and monomicrobial MDRAB pneumonia predicted failure of clinical resolution, and deterioration of pneumonia predicted mortality. MDRAB in monomicrobial pneumonia was the most certain to be causal. The clinical resolution rate from such pneumonia might reflect the ultimate efficacy of tigecycline in treating MDRAB pneumonia and the overall efficacy might be overestimated. (C) 2011 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据